Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Shri Sanjay Kapoor and Bijoux Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC443

2. The assessee is in appeal. The Asst. Commissioner of Customs, S.I.I.B. (Export), Mumbai-400 038, held that the appellant has violated the provisions of Section 50(2) 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rules 3 of Drawback Rules 1995, Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade Development Act, 1992 and the provisions of Section 114(III) of the Customs Act, 1962 and ordered confiscation of five subject consignments entered for export under provisions of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. He also gave option to redeem the same on payment of fine amount as indicated in the order and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-on Shri Sanjay Kapoor.2. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.3. The appellant, M/s. Bijoux Impex, Mumbai, filed five shipping bills under drawback scheme for export of 100% cotton vests and 100% cotton T-shirts (readymade garments) to M/s. Ali Al Moammari Trading Establishment, 204, 1/128, Naif Road, P.O. Box 1494, Dubai, U.A.E. The con...

Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC451

1. After hearing both sides, and considering the issues, it is found that: a) this appeal is pending since 1991. The issue is interpretation of the duty levied under the Erstwhile Tariff Item 68, or it was exempted vide a notification issued for 'crayons and pencil' falling under T.I. 68. b) The appellants are well known manufacturers of pencils and crayons. They were paying duty on pencils and crayons for the period earlier to the said notification. However, when a notification was issued consequent to the Finance Minister's speech while presenting the Budget for the year 1982-83 which inter alia stated as follows: "138......I propose to partially or fully exempt from excise duties several articles of common consumption. Some of these products are of interest to the student community, some are of general utility,.." "53.3. Under notification 55/75-CE, dated 1.3.1975 exemption of duty was given to a number of products. This notification has been superseded by notification No. 104/82-C...

Chawla Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The assessee is in appeal M/s Chawla Enterprises Ltd. Gurgaon, Haryana imported a consignment of "Components for Electronic Calculator" viz. 50,000 sets vide invoice No. JNE/3215/08/98 dated 14.8.98 of M/s J.N. Exports, Hongkong having a total CIF Value of Rs. 2,75,000/- and sought clearance vide Bill of Entry No. 12978 dated 22.8.98. They wanted to avail DEPB benefit vide notification No. 34/97.The said goods were examined evidence was secured of previous imports vide Bills of Entry No. 998 dated 2.2.98 and No. 9088 dated 19.1.98 of M/s Procal Electronic India Ltd. which indicated that the above stated goods had been heavily under invoiced. The ascertained value works out to Rs. 11,40,425/- as against the declared value of Rs. 2,75,000/- and therefore, they were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for misdeclaring the value to evade duty. The importer was penalised under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Redemption fine of Rs. 3laks & pe...

Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order modified the order of the original authority inasmuch he set aside the order imposing penalty on one Shri Arun N. Trivedi, director of the applicant company, and set aside the order on one Shri V.K. Doda, proprietor of M/s. Dheeru Fashions.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant company is engaged in the manufacture of manmade fabrics falling under chapter heading 54.06 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, working under the compounded levy scheme. The officers of Central Excise visited the factory premises of the applicants and noticed that though one stenter was got sealed and shown as closed in the sealing register, the same was found to be working in contravention of the provisions of Rule 96ZQ. Therefore, an offence case was booked against them and a show cause notice was issued. The original authority (Assistant Commissioner, Surat-I) who adjudicated the case, dete...

Space Age Industrial Projects Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order upheld the order of the lower authority. The lower authority sanctioned a refund claim made by the appellant to the tune of Rs. 68,993/- in terms of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 but appropriated the same towards the outstanding government dues from the appellants in terms of Section 11 of the same Act.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of EOT crane and have used such crane in their own premises. They were denied the benefit of notification 118/75 by the authorities. The appellants paid the duty as demanded. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed their appeal and in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, the appellants filed a refund claim for the duty excess paid by them. The Assistant Commissioner, Pune-V Division, dealt with the refund application and observed that since the...

Associated Plastics Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT567Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants had imported a consignment of Dry Garlic. The department found that those goods were liable for confiscation in terms of Exim Policy read with ITC(HS) Vol.III April 1997 -March 2002 as the clearance of this goods requires a specific import license which was not produced. Therefore, the Garlic Imported under Bills of Entry Nos.4683 & 4690 both dated 9.9.98 were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The Commissioner also found that the valuation of the goods was not correct. After he saw the samples of the goods imported by M/s S.S.P. International and in the present consignments, he found that the goods under these consignments were not inferior those imported by M/s S.S.P. International. It appeared to him that the samples to be off light quality as well as in size. He also took note of the fact that Shri, Pankaj H. Valia of M/s Gujarat Packaging Bhavnagar had himself agreed that the price of Garlic from China ranges between US $ 325 to U...

Raigad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The issue pertains to the question of payment of Service Tax. The appellants, M/s. Raigad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Anant Nagar, Nigade, Dist. Pune, are engaged in the manufacture of sugar falling under Chapter 7 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.They availed the services of Goods Transport Operators for the transport of their goods viz. Sugar, molasses, etc. for the period from 16.11.97 to 01.06.98.2. The Jt. Commissioner, Service Tax Cell, Pune-I, confirmed the demand for Rs. 15,86,963/- under Section 73(a) of the Service Tax Act.Interest is also ordered on the said amount. Further penalty of Rs. 200/- per day is ordered under Section 76 and 78 and further penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 77 is also ordered. On filing appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune, upheld the order of the adjudicating authority to the extent of Service Tax liability and levy of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, he waived the penalty imposed. He...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ellora Services

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT447Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is Revenue appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue relates to applicability of clause of unjust enrichment.3. The appellants undertake manufacturing of certain goods on behalf of their principal manufacturer M/s. Adishakti International Pvt. Ltd. It is admitted position that the appellants were entitled to refund claim of Rs. 4,21,036/-. The Deputy Commissioner concerned, though sanctioned the amount, he did not pay the same to the appellants, but transferred the same to Consumer Welfare Fund under the provisions of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Act). The appellant's contention to the effect that, they have not passed on the incidence of duty to the customer was not accepted. It had come on record that the appellants has passed on the incidence of higher duty to their customer viz M/s Adishakti. Hence the claimed amount was credited to the fund in terms of provisions contained in Clause (d) of Section 11B (2) of the Act.4. As ...

Maharashtra State Electricity Board a Board Constituted Under the Prov ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR748; 2005(1)BomCR820

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Petitioners have challenged the order dated 28th November 1994 of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 194 of 1989 directing them to extend the benefit of the General Order No. 74 to the first Respondent workman from 1st April 1980. The Petitioners were further directed to pay consequential arrears of wages by implementing the order from 1st April 1980.2. The first Respondent workman had joined services with the Petitioners as a Lower Division Clerk on 10th April 1964 and in the year 1971 was appointed to the post of Stores Assistant. On 17th March 1975, pursuant to an enquiry held against the workman for certain acts of misconduct, the Petitioners imposed punishment on the workman by withholding his increments for five years with cumulative effect. The workman appealed against this order. The Chairman of the Petitioners allowed the appeal and reduced the punishment by considering the fact that no actual loss of property had been sustain...

Dattaram Daulat Kodare Since Deceased by L.Rs Vs. Smt. Shantabai Zimji ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR519; 2005(1)BomCR363

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 14th April 1991 passed by the VIth Addl. District Judge, Thane dismissing Civil Appeal No. 417 of 1998 and confirming the decree for possession passed in favour of the respondent-landlord.2. The respondent is the landlady. The suit premises were let out to Dattaram the original petitioner for residence in the year 1961. Dattaram died during the pendency of the petition and his wife and sons are brought on record as the present petitioner. The respondent filed a suit against Dattaram bearing regular Civil suit no. 274 of 1983 for possession on several grounds. The trial Court held that Dattaram had acquired suitable residential accommodation elsewhere and was hot using the suit premises far the purpose for which they mere let out viz. the residence for a period of more than six months prior to the institution of a suit. The trial Court also held that Dattaram had carried out construction i...